Re: [Lake] 1 week 2nd WGLC on requirements and scoping text

["Blomqvist, Peter" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen and all,
I support the WG moving forward.

Best
Peter
________________________________
From: Lake <[e-mail]> on behalf of Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini=[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 10:51:09 PM
To: Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Lake] 1 week 2nd WGLC on requirements and scoping text

Hi Stephen,

I am happy with this text, and support the working group moving forward.

Thanks,
Francesca

On 24/05/2020, 23:08, "Lake on behalf of Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:


    Hi all,

    First: my apologies for taking so long on this. (I got
    sidetracked by an unexpected project.)

    ISTM we have pretty good, if rough, consensus on enough of
    the text to proceed, but with one important part that needs
    checking. (See below.)

    I'd like to start a 1 week 2nd WGLC with the main focus
    being to establish whether we have rough consensus on the
    scoping text below. (Which can be see in context at [2].)
    That text was the main outcome of our virtual meeting last
    month.

    So, please send mail to the list saying if you are happy
    enough to proceed on this basis. If you are not, then I'd
    appreciate if you could suggest alternate text with as
    few changes as possible.

    This 2nd WGLC closes on June 1st. If I see rough
    consensus to proceed at that point, I'll plan to start a
    call for adoption for the edhoc draft. If not, we'll have
    to discuss how to proceed with our AD, as I think that
    would mean that the WG is very badly stuck.

    The scoping text added was:

       As illustrated above, the setting is much more diverse
       in terms of credentials and trust anchors than that of
       the unconstrained web.  In order to deliver a timely
       result, there is a need to initially focus on what is
       considered most important at the time of writing: RPK
       (by reference and value) and certificate by reference.
       Information about validity of a certificate may be
       omitted from the AKE if available over unconstrained
       links.  The case of transporting certificate validation
       information over the AKE may be specified in the initial
       phase if there is a lightweight solution that matches
       existing standards and tools.

       A subsequent extension beyond the initial focus may be
       inevitable to maintain a homogenous deployment without
       having to implement a mix of AKE protocols, for example,
       to support the migration path described above.  The AKE
       needs to make clear the scope of cases analysed in the
       initial phase, and that a new analysis is required for
       additional cases.

    Thanks,
    Stephen.

    [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dlake-2Dreqs-2D03&d=DwIGaQ&c=fP4tf--1dS0biCFlB0saz0I0kjO5v7-GLPtvShAo4cc&r=ReOhyTHbHxF59rwa6NKLJmWnWtc32YE99Fj4rlHBZBM&m=RNMrW6e3Urc3aK2SEA4mNr-ZlZVhUsVlI-2ltDGEsQs&s=cXLr4bI_XbgTxTj7LDmLUX-zgIcRsc8mWMr349Qdz2Q&e=
    [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dlake-2Dreqs-2D03-23section-2D2.2.1&d=DwIGaQ&c=fP4tf--1dS0biCFlB0saz0I0kjO5v7-GLPtvShAo4cc&r=ReOhyTHbHxF59rwa6NKLJmWnWtc32YE99Fj4rlHBZBM&m=RNMrW6e3Urc3aK2SEA4mNr-ZlZVhUsVlI-2ltDGEsQs&s=AtQorPmHMsXYqgn1bZWqkXQECu9D2NR54PrTAlX9vYs&e=


--
Lake mailing list
[e-mail]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_lake&d=DwIGaQ&c=fP4tf--1dS0biCFlB0saz0I0kjO5v7-GLPtvShAo4cc&r=ReOhyTHbHxF59rwa6NKLJmWnWtc32YE99Fj4rlHBZBM&m=RNMrW6e3Urc3aK2SEA4mNr-ZlZVhUsVlI-2ltDGEsQs&s=u44OmRHXc6Q2-vHJY5QrYE2ZMgOPmfpjHG8l7zbeI8M&e=